Welcome to the IP Not Home Page

Opposed to Intellectual 'Property' on every frontier.

Contrary to popular wisdom, intellectual property (IP) is not a
valid form of property, it is not moral, practical, or economically
beneficial. Copyrights, patents, and a tiny percentile of trademarks do
more harm than good. This page promotes repealing IP laws and finding
useful alternatives.

The moral and historical foundation of property rights derive from
the fact that property has physical limitations. Not everybody can use
the same thing at the same time so rules are required so as to decide
what resources are allocated to who. Intellectual 'Property' is a
misnomer. It's not a valid form of property because it's foundation
derives from legal mandates, not from physical realities. It is also
different from property because IP typically has an expiration date.

Intellectual 'Property' is a dishonest name. Even the
creators of copyrights and patents never intended them to be property
rights, but incentives. Copyrights, are also a dishonest name - they
are not a right, but government granted monopolies. (Also, like most
government mandated incentives, they have big winners and big losers)

Valid property rights exist outside of law. People have property
rights even if there is no government, but typically people organize
together in governments and create laws to secure these rights. The
preamble to the US Constitution called these inalienable rights.

Because law and property rights are so intimately linked, people
often get confused into believing that property rights derive from
law rather than existing independently. Typically this leads to
the illusion that intellectual 'property' and physical property are
one in the same because each is defined by law in most western countries.

Finally, the mere existence of law implies choice and consequences.
Law would be useless if people were all destined by environmental
situations anyhow. Law can never create morality, but only prescribe
punishment (and reward) for different behaviors. When the consequences
of law tend to match up with what is naturally fair, then the public
tends to be happy - when law doesn't then many in society suffer and
individuals have a moral duty to defy those laws. For example, few
educated people would consider it right to own black slaves, just
because the law allowed it. Nor would an ethical person consider it
right to turn in a Jew that wasn't wearing a star-of-david just because
the law required it. There is compelling reason to believe that imposing
IP restrictions on other people is also unethical, and therefore should
be defied inspite of the law.

Often there is the misconception that if people don't have a copyright
or patent monopoly, then there would be no incentive to create. But this
is not the case. "Necessity is the mother of all invention". If a company
saves a million dollars a year by implementing a computer program or a
machine that costs a few hundred thousand to create - then someone will
find a way to do it, copyrights or no copyrights - patents or no patents!
Also, think of the renaissance which came about before most copyrights
and patents existed.

The best way to be rewarded in an IP-not society is by
taking a service based approach. A software developer could distribute
programs in mass, and if someone wants a modification to the program,
they could pay him by the hour to implement it. A business person
who writes a book about finance could use it as a tool to enhance his
reputation and land a contract at a large accounting firm. A doctor
who writes a medical book, could use it to become an in demand specialist
in his field. A musician could distribute his songs in mass to create
a demand for live concerts or night-club contracts.

There is also the concept of relative wealth, vs real wealth. For
example, in terms of disease and medical conditions there is compelling
reason to believe that many middle class people are better off in today's
society then kings were centuries ago. The same is true of intellectual
"property". If John Q. Citizen as an individual gives up all of his
IP rights with a total net value of say $100,000, but in return he has
access to everyone elses IP with a net value of $100,000,000 then he
has come out with an absolute net gain, even though his relative
wealth among the group may have decreased. For John Q. Citizen to
look at what he looses, and not what he gains is looking at the
hole and not the doughnut. This is because for every IP restriction that
he benefits from, there are probably millions that he is restricted by.

Finally, since the programmers, musicians, and the other creative
people of the world are a limited resource, there is no reason why
people shouldn't be paid directly for the use of their services
rather than for monopolies over the works that are created.

The desire to copy without cost is one motive that leads people
oppose IP. From a very young age, people copy teachers, parents,
elders, sisters and brothers. People often find it offensive when this
very natural and productive behavior is fined in the latter years of
life.

Often the desire to copy without cost leads to the accusation
that people who copy are just out for a "free lunch", but this is not
the case. One example may be a school teacher who wants to Xerox a text
book and distribute it to create a lesson. Another may be a computer
programmer who wants to modify and enhance an already existing software
program. Unlike with physical property, there is no natural right to
restrict these behaviors because they do not deprive the creators of
limited resources. A creator has no right to coerce a potential
commission on IP any more then they have a right to coerce a potential
gain in the stock market - even though either could be considered an
incentive in a given context.

However, those who work around IP and experience it often have an
even deeper motive. They see how it creates pain, damage, and even death.
An employee at a pharmaceutical company may witness how the company promoted
one drug that had lots of dangerous side effects because they didn't
have a patent over a much safer alternative one. An observer at a TV
studio may witness how the producers promoted a hype-tv show over an
informational one because of issues that relate to IP and ratings.
Perhaps a worker at an auto company observed that people died because
a safety feature was left out of their line of cars due to patent
restrictions. A computer user may experience drastically different
standards and incompatible programs because a vendor that "owns" the
software has no incentive to make it work with other vendors. A
musician or artist may feel inhibited from making enhancements to
other peoples works due to copyright infringement fears.

In an IP-not world, right and wrong is not defined by who owns a
given intellectual work, but rather by honesty. For example, in an IP-not
society if John Q. Citizen copied a music cdrom and gave it to a friend -
there would be nothing wrong with this, because copying is looked upon as
an inherently good behavior. But if John Q. Citizen copied the music cdrom,
and then claimed that he wrote the music, then this would be dishonest
and fraudulent. ** It would be giving false witness to both the person
who wrote it, and to the person who received it. This is why most
trademarks would be considered acceptable in an IP-not society, but
plagiarism, copyrights, and patents wouldn't be. Interestingly enough,
however, such lying in an IP-not society would happen less in practice,
because there is less incentive to lie about ownership when a copy
monopoly is not at stake.

Note, some trademarks laws are not designed to restrict fraudulent
behavior but rather used to give ownership over a characture (like
Mickey-mouse). These types of trademarks are unethical, and are really
just another extension of copy monopolies. For example, one would be hard
pressed to argue that a day-care center that paints cartoon characters on
it's walls is fraudulently claiming to be a subsidiary of Disney co. However,
on the whole, most trademarks are OK.

Another acceptable behavior is entering into contract agreements, and
keeping secrets. Assuming that people enter into these agreements under
ethical circumstances, there is no reason why a person shouldn't be
expected to keep their word. And with secrets, there are some times
when an ethical person would be expected to keep a secret. This is why
trade secrets and contractual agreements are also considered OK. However,
one should be aware that printed labels on the outside of a package are
not a true "contract" any more that it would be if John Q. Citizen sent
out a note in the mail saying that "by opening this letter, you agree to
pay me $50 bucks". Contracts are by definition a two way binding mutual
agreement.

** footnote, if John Q. Citizen copied someone else's music, modified
it, and made improvements of his own - there would be nothing wrong with this
as long as he admits that the work was not only his.

In summary, copying information isn't piracy, but rather sharing.
Using another's idea isn't stealing it, but acknowledging it.
Information can not be owned, and a good idea is valuable only to
the extent that it is applied. Contracts are not words, but agreements.
Even where information is used to do wrong, secrets are not kept by laws,
but by restraint. Privacy is not kept by property, but by respect. Also,
plagiarism is only about dishonest authorship, not ownership. Trade
secrets should be about secrets kept in agreement, not about silence
imposed by law. A trademark should be about identity, and not about
control. And yes, being honest is its' own reward.

In addition to this great restraint to literally billions, it
should be noted that "no one is an island". We all rely on parents,
friends, neighbors, teachers, and/or loved ones, on "the people who
have built printing presses, laid telephone cables, built roads and
buildings and in many other ways have contributed to the
'construction' of society." (Brian Martin 1995) And if society truly
owes one for an invention, one might want to consider that society
would also owe his mother, grandmother, and great-grandma, down onto
Adam and Eve of which everyone is an heir to. Ultimately, it can be
argued, any true obligation is owed to God for making the universe and
the idea to begin with. However, He already seems to have decided this
issue by giving information one set of characteristics and physical
property another!

One indicator that IP is all wrong is that there are several
success stories that are counterintuitive if intellectual property
is indeed valid. There are also many paradoxes and legal delimas
that pit IP against the Bill of Rights that would never come up
otherwise.

There are many examples of where IP failures have led to real
world success. One example is
Linux , a high quality UNIX type OS that is quickly gaining
commercial success as an Open
Source software project. Even more interesting, is how
other alternatives to Linux (and varients of other Open Source
projects), like FreeBSD, have not been as successful even though
their copyright is claimed to be less restrictive because it lets
developers "fork" off their own derivatives of copyrighted code.
If copyrights were truly valid, then the relative success of
Linux is counter intuitive. (the success of Linux, where other
projects like Java that is centrally licensed have stagnated should
also indicate something about the nature of IP)

Another example of an IP failure of leading to real world
success is the IBM compatible PC. IBM originally thought that
they had intellectual "property rights" to the interface on it's
initial PC line. When AMD (a competitor to Intel) made pin
compatible chips, IBM sued and spent over a 100 million
dollars trying to win in the courts, but lost. Shortly after, the
PC market exploded. One would think that the overwhelming success
IBM compatible PC would be counterintuitive if IP rights were
truly an incentive that betters society. Even more interesting
was the flop of the next line of IBM PC's called the PS2,
whose interface IBM was better able to control.

Another example is the failure of Macintosh computers to
dominate the market, where Microsoft succeeded. Most engineers
and OS experts agree that the Motorola architecture used by the
mac was superior, as was the design of the operating system
superior. Since Microsoft licensing practices were considered
lenient at the time compared to Apple, one would think that
the Mac was better leveraged for long term success. The relative
market success of Windows is counterintuitive if IP is a valid
property right.

An example of a great trademark failure is that little yellow
smiley face that we have all seen hundreds of times by now. The
company that originated the idea (Avis, I believe) forgot to register
a trademark on it and the rest is history.

In addition to many examples whose successes and failures are
counterintuitive to the IP philosophy, there are also some fundamental
problems that IP may lead to. For example, consider the following
phrase:
skldj akljd lkasd alksj faksjdf alsjf quweriuykjash xcnvkjsahf
kjd ajskdh alskjh fkajlsdfh lkajsh fklajs flkajs dflaskjhfals

Now this could be an encrypted copy of a companies most prized
intellectual property holding, and once it is spread all over the
planet, all someone has to do is release the password and there's not
a darn thing the company can do. Or this could be just random garbage,
and if the US government tries to do anything about it, they would be
blatantly violating my first amendment rights.

Another example may be a internet protocol that scatters a copyrighted
work among 10000 web sites such that anyone could access the work, but such
no one site would hold a legible enough piece of the work to be considered
a copyright infringement. Who would the government go after in this case?
(PS: don't be surprised if Ipnot plays a role in developing a protocol
like this)

Here's another scenario, A Government collects information
about itself that should be known by the general public, when it
becomes a threat that this information could be revealed, the
government sells the information to a company so that if anybody
publishes it, they are liable. All of a sudden, my rights as a citizen
to publish what I see fit about the Government are compromised by the
companies supposed copy "rights". (Yes, this has happened, see Brian
Martin's link, Against Intellectual Property)

One may also wish to consider many large companies like IBM, MGM, and
Microsoft who strongly embrace the rule of IP law, but who also have a
notorious reputation for using strong arm tactics to ignore others IP
"rights". If IP is valid, it would seem counterintuitive that such
practices would evolve. One may also wish to consider how often honest
individuals ignore IP quite a bit, sometimes accidently, sometimes
intentionally justified with phrases like "I only copied it for him
because he wouldn't have been able to afford it anyhow)

Of course, both those who love and hate IP do agree on a few things.
First, that IP is becoming ever more difficult to enforce (because of
new technologies like encryption and the internet). Second,
it is impossible to locally enforce IP without also enforcing it
globally. If there is any one country or place in the world that has
no IP rules, then it pretty much unravels the IP restrictions for the
rest of the world because technology makes the globe so inter-connected.
Either way, this begs the argument, why not invest your time and your
life in a way that does not rely on IP.

Overall, new technologies have changed the rules. There are
many examples of success in the real world that are contrary
to IP. Also, eventually society will half to choose between IP and
the Bill of Rights when it comes to practical enforcement.

A bit about freedom

The phrase, "you get what you pay for", sums up a philosophy that
leads many people to think that free information will also be cheap,
trinket-y, and not too useful in the real world. However, it should
be noted that free information is not about being free of all costs,
rather it is about free opportunity for people to make the best of what
is already naturally there before them. The phrase "the best things in
life are free" is much more appropriate. (or "freedom of speech" is
even better)

A little IP humor . . .

Once upon a time, a man prayed to know if intellectual
property was true. To his astonishment, an angel popped out of the sky
at that moment and whacked him on the head with a stick. At first
stunned, and then frustrated, he recovered his senses and asked,
"Dearest angel, what did I do wrong?" The angel paused for a moment
and then exclaimed, "Why nothing, I was just answering your prayer!
God gives information one set of characteristics and physical property
another."

Recently, in the USA, the Justice department has cracked down upon
Microsoft for allegedly playing unfair with its IE 4.0 browser. While
few people dislike Microsoft's business practices more than I do, this
particular reaction worries me. This is a classic example of how our
societies failure to recognize that IP is fake, leads to unethical
business practices. This, in turn, leads to government regulation to
deal with these unethical practices and leads to an expanding
government presence on the Internet, and within the software industry,
to enforce these regulations. Who knows, the government could perform
random searches and seizures in the name of preventing abuses. So at
first it may seem like a relief that "Microsoft is finally getting
what's coming to them", but this is actually just another example of
how IP can never be enforced accept at the expense of the Bill of
Rights. Moral, instead of looking at Microsoft, It's better to take a
look in the mirror at ourselves and see what we as individuals believe.

This page has shown that many people suffer from IP as it is now,
so this does not look like a promising start for the future. In fact,
consider WW 1 for comparison. The industrial revolution had brought
the kings of Europe great wealth, but almost no accountability to the
rights of the public. This change eventually led to an attitude where
the kings of Europe had no problem going to war in the name of
national pride. It wasn't long before war spread across Europe, and
millions of people died.

This should teach us today that changes in technology always demand
higher values, and that a failure to understand these values can have
deadly consequences. This page explains that one of these values must
be the nullification of IP. The concept that intangible things can be
treated like owned commodities is, by definition, not founded in
reality. It is a problem waiting to happen, it is a time bomb waiting
to explode. There is no telling how severe the consequences can be,
and it is better not to find out.

Consider a possibility where the USA is at constant odds with China
because their nation is so restricted by America's IP laws. As each
country grows, contention builds. Eventually WW3 breaks out.

Another scenario could involve the US government becoming more and
more intrusive into the Internet, software companies, and private
peoples lives by forbidding encryption, etc.... As the people become
more and more outraged from IP related problems, the government
responds with more regulations and controls, but this just leads to
outlaws and gangsters making a killing on the black market. Soon a
type of anarchy breaks out, gang like groups spread everywhere, and
the citizens become terrorized (Perhaps even some form of genocide
breaks out).

Now, don't get me wrong, my outlook for the future is bright. But
just as we could have never gotten where we are today under the old
pharaoh dynasty philosophy. We can not get to the future without
getting rid of IP.

It should be considered that the establishment of private property
lays upon a historical foundation that is thousands of years old, and
has been tested by countless wars and bloodshed. So where is this
foundation for intellectual "property"? Indeed, some of the more evil
influences of this century centered upon politically limiting the free
press, and free speech. Not a good track record for a philosophy that
economically limits the free flow of ideas.

At first the idea of IP (intellectual property) sounds honest
because all people have a built in hope that their photo, song, book,
computer program, invention, painting, or that "pick anything" will
bring something good to others, while gaining personal
reward. However, IP is a trap because pursuing a good thing is its own
reward that naturally attracts opportunity without a granted
monopoly. Beware that IP causes others to be limited in their usage of
inventions, works, and ideas, not because this usage limits someone
else's needs, but because of a perceived entitlement. That whatever
creation IP does promote is often done at the expense of someone else
being able to enhance, complement or add to it - IP makes those who
pursue similar interests into enemies instead of a team. To make
matters worse, many creations that IP promotes are not even beneficial
(see examples above). Also, IP is not natural in a free society
because when anybody claims economic entitlements from another due to
a perceived right, then this is not free.

Consider that, as society races toward the information age -
massive majorities will have huge and unlimited access to information
and ideas, while small minorities may claim to be entitled economic
control over such. This will not only create contention, but will
eventually become unenforceable, even at the expense of the Bill of
Rights. Indeed, as information becomes abundant and access to it
becomes cheaper, the law that will come to be noticed won't be a
copyright law, but the law of supply and demand. For with information,
the supply will approach unlimited so the demand per unit will
approach zero. The real value in a work will not be in its
informational content, but rather in how it's applied by individuals
servicing individuals. So since the programmers, musicians, and the
other creative people of the world are a limited resource, why not pay
directly for the use of their services rather than for monopolies over
the works they create?

The positions of IP Not (I can almost guarantee you) do not represent
the positions of my employer or my ISP. People are free to copy and
modify this page as long as they apply the same rules to the pages
they create. The IP-not foundation web page was created by, and paid
for by the Christy family whose religious values hold that copyrights
and patents are immoral and unethical.